The present invention describes a framework for organizing, selecting and launching media items. Part of that framework involves the design and operation of graphical user interfaces with the basic building blocks of point, click, scroll, hover and zoom and, more particularly, to graphical user interfaces associated with media items which can be used with a three-dimensional (hereinafter “3D”) pointing remote.
Technologies associated with the communication of information have evolved rapidly over the last several decades. Television, cellular telephony, the Internet and optical communication techniques (to name just a few things) combine to inundate consumers with available information and entertainment options. Taking television as an example, the last three decades have seen the introduction of cable television service, satellite television service, pay-per-view movies and video-on-demand. Whereas television viewers of the 1960s could typically receive perhaps four or five over-the-air TV channels on their television sets, today's TV watchers have the opportunity to select from hundreds and potentially thousands of channels of shows and information. Video-on-demand technology, currently used primarily in hotels and the like, provides the potential for in-home entertainment selection from among thousands of movie titles. Digital video recording (DVR) equipment such as offered by TiVo, Inc., 2160 Gold Street, Alviso, Calif. 95002, further expand the available choices.
The technological ability to provide so much information and content to end users provides both opportunities and challenges to system designers and service providers. One challenge is that while end users typically prefer having more choices rather than fewer, this preference is counterweighted by their desire that the selection process be both fast and simple. Unfortunately, the development of the systems and interfaces by which end users access media items has resulted in selection processes which are neither fast nor simple. Consider again the example of television programs. When television was in its infancy, determining which program to watch was a relatively simple process primarily due to the small number of choices. One would consult a printed guide which was formatted, for example, as series of columns and rows which showed the correspondence between (1) nearby television channels, (2) programs being transmitted on those channels and (3) date and time. The television was tuned to the desired channel by adjusting a tuner knob and the viewer watched the selected program. Later, remote control devices were introduced that permitted viewers to tune the television from a distance. This addition to the user-television interface created the phenomenon known as “channel surfing” whereby a viewer could rapidly view short segments being broadcast on a number of channels to quickly learn what programs were available at any given time.
Despite the fact that the number of channels and amount of viewable content has dramatically increased, the generally available user interface and control device options and framework for televisions has not changed much over the last 30 years. Printed guides are still the most prevalent mechanism for conveying programming information. The multiple button remote control with simple up and down arrows is still the most prevalent channel/content selection mechanism. The reaction of those who design and implement the TV user interface to the increase in available media content has been a straightforward extension of the existing selection procedures and interface objects. Thus, the number of rows and columns in the printed guides has been increased to accommodate more channels. The number of buttons on the remote control devices has been increased to support additional functionality and content handling, e.g., as shown in FIG. 1. However, this approach has significantly increased both the time required for a viewer to review the available information and the complexity of actions required to implement a selection. Arguably, the cumbersome nature of the existing interface has hampered commercial implementation of some services, e.g., video-on-demand, since consumers are resistant to new services that will add complexity to an interface that they view as already too slow and complex.
In addition to increases in bandwidth and content, the user interface bottleneck problem is being exacerbated by the aggregation of technologies. Consumers are reacting positively to having the option of buying integrated systems rather than a number of segregable components. A good example of this trend is the combination television/VCR/DVD in which three previously independent components are frequently sold today as an integrated unit. This trend is likely to continue, potentially with an end result that most if not all of the communication devices currently found in the household being packaged as an integrated unit, e.g., a television/VCR/DVD/internet access/radio/stereo unit. Even those who buy separate components desire seamless control of, and interworking between, those components. With this increased aggregation comes the potential for more complexity in the user interface. For example, when so-called “universal” remote units were introduced, e.g., to combine the functionality of TV remote units and VCR remote units, the number of buttons on these universal remote units was typically more than the number of buttons on either the TV remote unit or VCR remote unit individually. This added number of buttons and functionality makes it very difficult to control anything but the simplest aspects of a TV or VCR without hunting for exactly the right button on the remote. Many times, these universal remotes do not provide enough buttons to access many levels of control or features unique to certain TVs. In these cases, the original device remote unit is still needed, and the original hassle of handling multiple remotes remains due to user interface issues arising from the complexity of aggregation. Some remote units have addressed this problem by adding “soft” buttons that can be programmed with the expert commands. These soft buttons sometimes have accompanying LCD displays to indicate their action. These too have the flaw that they are difficult to use without looking away from the TV to the remote control. Yet another flaw in these remote units is the use of modes in an attempt to reduce the number of buttons. In these “moded” universal remote units, a special button exists to select whether the remote should communicate with the TV, DVD player, cable set-top box, VCR, etc. This causes many usability issues including sending commands to the wrong device, forcing the user to look at the remote to make sure that it is in the right mode, and it does not provide any simplification to the integration of multiple devices. The most advanced of these universal remote units provide some integration by allowing the user to program sequences of commands to multiple devices into the remote. This is such a difficult task that many users hire professional installers to program their universal remote units.
Some attempts have also been made to modernize the screen interface between end users and media systems. Electronic program guides (EPGs) have been developed and implemented to replace the afore-described media guides. Early EPGs provided what was essentially an electronic replica of the printed media guides. For example, cable service operators have provided analog EPGs wherein a dedicated channel displays a slowly scrolling grid of the channels and their associated programs over a certain time horizon, e.g., the next two hours. Scrolling through even one hundred channels in this way can be tedious and is not feasibly scalable to include significant additional content deployment, e.g., video-on-demand. More sophisticated digital EPGs have also been developed. In digital EPGs, program schedule information, and optionally applications/system software, is transmitted to dedicated EPG equipment, e.g., a digital set-top box (STB). Digital EPGs provide more flexibility in designing the user interface for media systems due to their ability to provide local interactivity and to interpose one or more interface layers between the user and the selection of the media items to be viewed. An example of such an interface can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,421,067 to Kamen et al., the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. FIG. 2 depicts a GUI described in the '067 patent. Therein, according to the Kamen et al. patent, a first column 190 lists program channels, a second column 191 depicts programs currently playing, a column 192 depicts programs playing in the next half-hour, and a fourth column 193 depicts programs playing in the half hour after that. The baseball bat icon 121 spans columns 191 and 192, thereby indicating that the baseball game is expected to continue into the time slot corresponding to column 192. However, text block 111 does not extend through into column 192. This indicates that the football game is not expected to extend into the time slot corresponding to column 192. As can be seen, a pictogram 194 indicates that after the football game, ABC will be showing a horse race. The icons shown in FIG. 2 can be actuated using a cursor, not shown, to implement various features, e.g., to download information associated with the selected programming. Other digital EPGs and related interfaces are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,314,575, 6,412,110, and 6,577,350, the disclosures of which are also incorporated here by reference.
However, the interfaces described above suffer from, among other drawbacks, an inability to easily scale between large collections of media items and small collections of media items. For example, interfaces which rely on lists of items may work well for small collections of media items, but are tedious to browse for large collections of media items. Interfaces which rely on hierarchical navigation (e.g., tree structures) may be more speedy to traverse than list interfaces for large collections of media items, but are not readily adaptable to small collections of media items. Additionally, users tend to lose interest in selection processes wherein the user has to move through three or more layers in a tree structure. For all of these cases, current remote units make this selection processor even more tedious by forcing the user to repeatedly depress the up and down buttons to navigate the list or hierarchies. When selection skipping controls are available such as page up and page down, the user usually has to look at the remote to find these special buttons or be trained to know that they even exist.
Accordingly, it would be desirable to provide organizing frameworks, techniques and systems which simplify the control and screen interface between users and media systems as well as accelerate the selection process, while at the same time permitting service providers to take advantage of the increases in available bandwidth to end user equipment by facilitating the supply of a large number of media items and new services to the user. Moreover, it would be desirable to provide interfaces which supply an easy and fast selection experience regardless of the size(s) of the media item collection(s) being browsed.